Member Info for Croutom

Agreed with Prop, I'm off work for 3 months during the summer so will spend a lot of my time and resources organizing and running through the technicalities of the EGM

No problem prop, it's a good starting point and reassuring to have some level of control on SMLs future.

Hopefully the BOD see the potential of incoming action from us and it puts a rocket up their backside!

Agree 100% ShangrLa

Thanks Quilver, let's hope it doesn't have to come to it & see what April's RNS' says before we proceed

Also I'm not sure how we can get any of them to interview for a new CEO. I know my plan is bonkers, but a bonkers situation requires bonkers action.

I am hung up on the operational changes mentioned by JP in ShagraLas post, I'm hoping that some costs have been cut here. If they have them I'm happy

Colline - again I'm not saying that this is the definitive answer, nor final solution & I really hope that the April RNS is a humdinger that puts us all at ease.

The above doc is just a reasonable suggestion to change the operations of the company in order to preserve capital and improve the SP. I am open for any other options, but I do think that to get the best out of this for all of us action will be required if there is clear indication from the next RNS' that they want to keep it business as usual.

I really don't think that JP is the one and only potential CEO when the SP has declined 80% in 5 years, it is by all accounts an awful track record by any means. I also cannot think of any other board member that can feasibly take over and I really don't think that JP will drop salary or remove the entire BOD.

Slurm, we'll have to see what these operational changes are in the report promised at the end of April, if significant and beneficial changes are made and costs reduced then I'm happy to hold fire.

I'm also happy to adjust the proposal so we're all content with the changes, this is a route I just see as feasible.

The April report needs to indicate a significant overhaul, SML can't continue business as usual. if it does we've lost this investment already and better to go out knowing we've tried something, rather than let the BOD deteriorate the company to nothing

Can you think of any other feasible candidates Preston that shareholders would agree on?

Preston with PW as CEO my thoughts are we essentially get a discounted CEO. He holds 80m+ shares and may eve
vote for it himself, making the change more likely. In this plan PW and JH essentially just need to keep Cobre operating (essentially it operates itself) and maintain the licence of LCCM and Redmoor until we reach a cash facility which can start LCCM.

The other option is to retain JP but get him to cut his salary to $129k and remove PW and AB from the BOD. We'll fight the whole BOD and all their voting shares on this, and IMO it'll be less likely to go through.

I would happily offer the $129k CEO package to anyone else we see as feasibly getting voted for by shareholders as a whole, but I just can't think of anyone else. IMO JP has resulted in the SP getting to where we are now, AB is just not feasible at all.

JH is quiet as a mouse on all things SML, but as he chairs the safety committee and has 40 years mining experience, it's my thought we probably need him on the payroll.

I think we need to retain a board member as CEO and PW's my last option as I've discounted the rest!

Noticed a few grammar errors that I can clean up prior, this is a draft and something I chucked together when I had spare time!

Sammy take a gander at my EGM proposal thread

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:85b6fd5e-ee07-4b49-a010-24f52e4a0c2c

Attached, should be publicly accessible and you should be able to add comments if you sign in (or you can enter comments below).

My thoughts are that it would be destructive to remove the whole BOD ("the devil you know" as Slurm mentioned prior), rather shuffle roles around in order to maximise value and reduce overheads, I have put reasoning within the report for the allocation.

This new structure should save around $270,000 per annum and result in a significant increase in profit margin and when the economy recovers profits from Cobre should be less restrained and take us up to the $1m mark in cash balance. Although there will be disruption, it's clear that the current board structure and remuneration is bad value for shareholders.

By switching the CEO we actually have a chance that the prospect CEO with their significant shareholding actually votes for this option too, increasing the likelihood of this going ahead.

Of course we all need to agree on this, so happy to adjust wording etc to get something feasible that we all agree on, I just thought it would be a good start.

We should probably wait to see what this April announcement contains, and at least we have another avenue to explore if it does not meet requirements.

Big 4m buy prop

Prop - I agree, like Lupi says I've essentially written off what I've invested, the email from JP just sounds like he wants to keep it business as usual.

I'm in the process of writing up a document outlining the issues and suggesting a few credible solutions to increase our net cash flow to hopefully get to the stage where we can start the oxide process ourselves (currently on holz so doing bits when I can)

My though is by decreasing our outgoings we can work out cash position to $m we may be able to borrow enough (through a bank) to pay for the bonds associated ($2m usd) with the oxide PEPR, hopefully borrowing up to $3m to pay for the tools required for the first leaching.

We can adapt it if required and I think having a document such as this would give the EGM credible structure and direction

Yeah number6 that refers to the oxide PEPR only (ML 5467)

I think what needs to be said is that if AB, PW and JH were not on the payroll would Cobre have to cease operation?

+ What do we need to pay for with regard to LCCM and Redmoor to keep both operations from being seized / keep them compliant & legal (IE does there have to be a mine manager on site in accordance with aus law etc, even if not operational)

Ok Slurm that makes sense - we need a true cash flow model of wages outgoings etc and the value added to the business on each expenditure.

We do not know about what each one of them does behind the business to keep it running, or the entire ramification legal and operational of removing each ED so that will have to be investigated.

I am just afraid that they'll spin some tall tale to justify their salaries and then it's just business as normal, we just need a sensible list of questions for them, which we can decide on next week, as well as a few points to vote on after to decide which path to take going forward. I certainly don't want a business as usual scenario, there hasn't been a share price rise in 5 years so it's not being run effectively as is

My concern is slurm is that they will just spin anything to keep their jobs, and whatever they have been doing is clearly not adding value for shareholders, they've had 5 years to sort it! - as said, they're just not held accountable so just sit back and watch the money roll in

I do not think that a $5m cap company with one operating mine needs 4 directors, rather one 'capable' CEO who deals directly with the project managers at each mine. I think as LCCM is in aus and the one we need to get started JP probably needs to be kept.

Great at the weekend I'll do a total count and list and see where we are - just looked at the average salary for a mine manager in south Australia - looking at a low average of around $160k (converted from AUD)

I really think that if we completely chop the BOD down to one member on $150k pa usd and getting rid of our LCCM mine manager we'd be saving just under $500k usd per annum.

Lost compensation will be replaced by the increase in value of the share price

Sounds good to me prop - might have to be a teams link or something easily accessible I'm sure there are some tech introverts among us - although I'm happy with discord.

I think I'll leave the thread open until the weekend to see how much support we can get, then I'll review the full requirements over the weekend and then message. Obviously when we're voting it would help to have 180m + so we can supercede the BODs votes (as they hold around 180m)

Just have to hope manners and RAB will also be on board!